PDA

View Full Version : GASIL


Fuji Abound
21st Jun 2006, 07:41
It always seems strange to me if you are an owner operator you automatically get this publication and the Occurence Listing and CHIRP that comes with it, compliments of the CAA I guess.

However how many pilots are owners? I asume the majority are not, or are at least not the "designated" owner.

It seems strange because these publications are a useful source of safety information. Presumably the CAA has a list of active pilots and so presumably these publications could be sent to all active pilots as part of their safety sense drive, and yet they are not. :confused:

IO540
21st Jun 2006, 08:19
Are you sure the mailing is done by the CAA?

I was once told it is done by a separate outfit, which publishes that magazine.

I tried to get the address changed, because the address I then had on G-INFO was the registered office of the company, which was my accountant, and he was getting fed up with having to pass on all the dross that was getting sent to it. But the reply was that they pull their mailing info from the CAA database and can't maintain a separate database - unless I purchase a separate paid for subscription.

DFC
21st Jun 2006, 10:28
It's very simple really.

If you own an aircraft, you get the information. This also includes information from the airframe and engine Manufacturer, avionics in some cases also.

It is your responsibility to pass on that information to other pilots who you allow fly your aircraft.

All flight instructors also receive GASIL so that they can pass on the information to their students.

A very simple and cost effective system indeed!

Regards,

DFC

xz0npz
21st Jun 2006, 10:54
Or...... you could get them off the web for free! They come out regularly here: http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=33&pagetype=65&applicationid=11&mode=list&type=sercat&id=7
In our syndicate, we simply issue the link each time a new edition comes out.

Fuji Abound
21st Jun 2006, 10:56
"A very simple and cost effective system indeed!"

It is you are correct.

I was wondering however whether in fact it achieves the objective intended.

An analogy. Speed cameras are very cost effective. Do they actually reduce accidents caused by undue speed?

Presumably a copy of these publications could be sent to every current pilot. Would that be more cost effective in terms of the enhanced safety in might achieve if that is your primary objective?

Is it a good thing to rely on pilots passing the material on to other members of their group, pilots who might rent their aircraft or pilots who habitually rent from fly clubs?

FullyFlapped
21st Jun 2006, 11:22
DFC :

It is your responsibility to pass on that information to other pilots who you allow fly your aircraft.

You're surely not suggesting that anyone who flies my aircraft must first be given a copy of GASIL ? I quite agree regarding information from manufacturers etc, but ... GASIL ?

FF :ok:

gasax
21st Jun 2006, 11:31
I have to say I would be loath to pass my copy on.

The general lecturing and hectoring tone is enough to ensure only the dedicated would wade their way through it.

It is sad how something that I used to regard as a useful resource has become nanny lecturing - you must obey the rules, you must obey the rules.

But its all going to get better - GASIL says in 2008 when we all have to have Mode S transponders collision avoidance will be much easier due to either 'some form of collision avoidance system, or indirectly by being re-broadcast from a groouond radar receiver to the cockpit'.

Preserve us from people who have never had to pay for their own flying...

IO540
21st Jun 2006, 12:48
The general lecturing and hectoring tone is enough to ensure only the dedicated would wade their way through it.

:D

How true.

david viewing
21st Jun 2006, 12:57
you must obey the rules, you must obey the rules.

Sorry, Gasax, but you've got that bit wrong. The correct quote is " you must obey the rules, stupid, you must obey the rules"

As in rushing to get an aircraft to maintenance in unsuitable weather because of yet more pointless childish rules about ferry permits. No question of Gasil camping out on CAA's lawn until they put things right, Oh No!! Just feel free to kill yourself at your own expense.

Fuji Abound
22nd Jun 2006, 09:44
"No question of Gasil camping out on CAA's lawn until they put things right"

So who is really behind GASIL. I have never got around to looking who the editors are etc.

I do agree that it is very rare to see a "journal" written in such patronising terms these days. In GASILs case it seems to be a whole new art form.

Presumably since only owners receiver the hard copy we pay for this out of our registration * annual fees :confused: .

Andy_RR
22nd Jun 2006, 12:46
gasax's comments on GASIL piqued my interest, so I had to go read one. I won't be in such a hurry next time, but can anyone explain what this, from the latest issue, means:

Word for the summer
“Turning back when you’ve got an engine problem is like feeling lucky
looking into the barrel of Dirty Harry’s gun.
Think before trying it - are you that keen on Russian roulette?”

A

muffin
22nd Jun 2006, 14:55
Yes, I wondered about that as well. What else are you supposed to do - carry on regardless? It all depends on the nature and severity of the problem, and that is rather a bald statement to make. Strange phraseology though.

chrisN
22nd Jun 2006, 14:59
Maybe we should have an informal competition, to gather possible answers. The mods could adjudicate on technical merit and artistic impressions, and the results bound up and sent to GASIL as a commentary on their initiative.

By the way, I own a glider. I don't get GASIL sent to me.

I have by September to pay CAA to duplicate my existing BGA unique registration with a CAA G-type registration, so they can avoid at least one of their employees being redundant now that EASA have responsibility to do most of what CAA used to.

Wonder if I will get GASIL then, as a CAA-recognised owner. Not that I much want it - IIRC, the only article referring to gliding I ever read in it was biassed, inaccurate, and a waste of space.

Chris N. (Joining the ranks of Grumpy Old Men)

High Wing Drifter
22nd Jun 2006, 15:13
but can anyone explain what this, from the latest issue, means:
It means that trying to get onto a reciprocal heading to land back on the runway with an engine problem that you have no time to analyse is probabaly going to result in a fatal accident. Apparently you stand a much better chance if you simply land wherever you can within about 30deg of your current track. The theory is that so long as you don't stall, you'll probably live and visa-versa. The majority of those who have tried to turn back died.

At least a couple of ppruners have had such an experience, Cbilton (he got a safety award too) and Monocock. Would be interesting to get their view on the reality of EFATOs.

I think it was Brian Leocomber in an article who said that turning back after an EFATO is possible so long as you are prepared to immediately put the aircraft in a steep dive to get the airspeed needed to avoid an accelerated stall due to the steep bank angle and high rate of turn required to turn in time. Might be alright for an ex-Rothamans team bloke, but not me :ooh:

Mike Cross
22nd Jun 2006, 15:42
Cbilton? Chris Linton EFATO at Shoreham, landed on the beach at Worthing following a con-rod exiting through the crankcase.

Mono had an EFATO much sooner after take-off.

Mono will probably tell you that going for max rate or max angle of climb immediately after take-off is not a good idea if it's not absolutely essential. Better to have a little excess speed in reserve close to the ground.

Chris was I gather a lot higher when his happened.

Another friend of mine was killed by his EFATO. Over woods when it happened and he stalled and dropped a wing. He was an experienced glider pilot too.

There are varous scenarios. Some years ago the BGA added "Eventualities" to their pre take-off checks, i.e. what do I do if..... It's worth thinking about, particularly at an unfamiliar field.

The amount of height lost in a power-off 180 is considerable. Add in the increase in AoA and you have a good recipe for a stall.

Mike

gasax
22nd Jun 2006, 16:12
Oh good! I read that piece, thought what the hell are they on about, guessed they had left out the takeoff bit and presumed someone was trying to be really 'crucial man'. Shame it lost something along the way, but that seems to be GASIL.

Can they please find someone who isn't ex-services, who actually pays his/her own money to fly something and is prepared to educate rather than hector?

The contrast between when David Hocking headed this up and now is so huge (and embarassing for the CAA), please, please CAA do something about it!

muffin
22nd Jun 2006, 17:48
It doesn't say EFATO. I had assumed it meant in the cruise?

I thought the EFATO at Shoreham was the late MIke Stapp. I remember him telling me that he walked up the beach after it and nobody gave him a second glance.

rotorcraig
22nd Jun 2006, 18:42
Go to the Publication Subscriptions (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=33&pagetype=65&applicationid=11&mode=sub) page on the CAA website and sign up.

Tick the "Aviation Safety" category, and the CAA will eMail you each time GASILs (and other similar publications) are released.

RC

QDMQDMQDM
22nd Jun 2006, 20:29
The amount of height lost in a power-off 180 is considerable.

It's more like 270 when you look at the teardrop you have to fly to get back onto the reciprocal runway.

Fuji Abound
22nd Jun 2006, 20:58
"This also includes information from the airframe and engine Manufacturer"

Not true.

Mike Cross
22nd Jun 2006, 22:09
Muffin
I was referring to this one. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/3011361.stm)

Andy_RR
23rd Jun 2006, 03:36
I did actually figure out that they must be on about EFATO - but how does a trite phrase like that improve the community's knowledge on such an important issue?

I'm with gasax all the way on this one. GASIL reads like an opportunity absolutely wasted by the CAA. Even the Safety Sense leaflets at the back of LASORS make rivetting reading by comparison.

It could be a publication that everyone waits impatiently for it to appear, but no - instead it's a lecture from the headmaster that falls on deaf ears.

It's not as if there are a dearth of topics to be covered. You only have to read PPRuNe for a few weeks to find that out.

A

IO540
23rd Jun 2006, 06:27
At the risk of stating the obvious, it depends on the length of the runway and the headwind.

I have departed from airports where I was at 1000ft AGL before coming off the end of the runway. I think it was Cardiff but it would be the case at most big airports. In such a case, a 180 back would be rather easy, and if there was plenty of headwind it would be easier still.

I have an article from the USA which analyses the problem accurately and finds that if doing a maximum performance takeoff (i.e. runway just long enough) then a LOT of headwind is needed, plus a 180 turnback done at close to the stall speed (that would take a lot of balls and skill). But most of the time (one hopes!) people aren't doing marginal departures.

GASIL is written in the patronising tone of so many CAA "documents". This puts off anybody with more than half a brain. Almost certainly someone ex UK military. I wonder how long it will be before these retired ex RAF navigators will retire?

What is much worse is that it puts out loads of personal opinion which (by virtue of it masquarading as an official CAA publication) is made to look like an authoritative statement on the law. A lot of that opinion happens to be dodgy.

High Wing Drifter
23rd Jun 2006, 06:35
It could be a publication that everyone waits impatiently for it to appear, but no - instead it's a lecture from the headmaster that falls on deaf ears.
I just take it for what it is, a reminder of things that go wrong. I don't try and read anything else into it or even care how it is written. It certainly isn't as condescending as some remarks made on this forum :\ There is write up relevant to the desceinding without a procedure thread which is interesting. The case of guy who was tracking TO rather than FROM on his VOR. His candid comments are also a recurring event that I think is relevant to anybody who thinks they got it all sussed (how's about that for condescending ;))

IO540
23rd Jun 2006, 06:51
Absolutely fair point HWD; however it costs a lot of money to publish and mail out this mag and IMHO it is wasting an opportunity to modernise attitudes in GA.

It's exactly the same with the CAA safety presentations. In fact I wonder if they are done by the same man... can't remember his name but he's well known. Ex RAF I believe.

One can take the charitable view that the UK average PPL annual time is 10-20 hours (I read that on the internet so it must be true) and constantly reminding them of the most basic errors is where money should be spent. If that is the case, it's no wonder pprune readers find it a bit of a bore since I would bet most of them are well above that annual figure.

But aircraft owners will usually be doing a lot more hours (otherwise why own something) so mailing such a "don't forget to rotate when you take off" magazine to them has got to be a waste of resources.